42. Yujuico v.

Republic
G.R. No. 168661 (October 26, 2007)

Facts: In 1974, herein subject property is a registered parcel of land originally sold Jesus S. Yujuico.
This parcel of land was subdivided into two lots. Lot 1 (TCT) was issued in Yujuico’s name Lot 2 (TCT)
was issued in the name of petitioner Augusto Y. Carpio.

Sometime in 1977, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1085 entitled Conveying the Land Reclaimed in
the Foreshore and Offshore of the Manila Bay (The Manila-Cavite Coastal Road Project) as Property of the
Public Estates Authority as well as Rights and Interests with Assumptions of Obligations in the
Reclamation Contract Covering Areas of the Manila Bay between the Republic of the Philippines and the
Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (1977) was issued.

Land reclaimed in the foreshore and offshore areas of Manila Bay became the properties of
the Public Estates Authority (PEA), a government corporation that undertook the reclamation of lands
or the acquisition of reclaimed lands.

The PEA undertook the construction of the Manila Coastal Road. As this was being planned,
Yujuico and Carpio discovered that a verification survey they commissioned showed that the road
directly overlapped their property, and that they owned a portion of the land sold by the PEA to the
MBDC.

Yujuico and Carpio filed before the Parañaque City Regional Trial Court (RTC), a complaint for
the Removal of Cloud and Annulment of Title with Damages against the PEA. The parties entered into
a compromise agreement approved by the trial court.

Later, the incumbent PEA General Manager informed the OSG that the new PEA board and
management had reviewed the compromise agreement and had decided to defer its implementation
and hold it in abeyance following the view of the former PEA General Manager. The new PEA
management then filed a petition for relief from the resolution approving the compromise agreement
on the ground of mistake and excusable negligence.

The petition was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it was filed out of time and
that the allegation of mistake and excusable negligence lacked basis.

The PEA fared no better in the Court of Appeals (CA), as the petition was dismissed for failure
to pay the required docket fees and for lack of merit.

The matter reached the Supreme Court in Public Estates Authority v. Yujuico [8] but PEAs
petition was denied, upholding the trial courts dismissal of the petition for relief for having been filed
out of time. The allegation of fraud in the titling of the subject property in the name of Fermina Castro
was not taken up by the Court.

Undeterred, a Complaint for Annulment and Cancellation of Decree and its Derivative Titles,
was filed with the RTC.

Yujuico and Carpio filed a Motion to Dismiss (With Cancellation of Notice of Lis Pendens),[10] on
the grounds, among others, that: (1) the cause of action was barred by prior judgment; (2) the claim
had been waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished 
Issues: Whether or not reversion suit is proper in this case.
Whether or not the present petition estopped by laches.

Ruling: No, the reversion suit is not proper.

The Supreme Court held that the instant Civil Case No. 01-0222 for annulment and cancellation
of Decree No. N-150912 and its derivative titles was filed on June 8, 2001 with the Parañaque City RTC.
It is clear therefore that the reversion suit was erroneously instituted in the Parañaque RTC and should
have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The proper court is the (filed with the) CA which is the
body mandated by BP Blg. 129 and prescribed by Rule 47 to handle annulment of judgments of RTCs.

Yes, the present petition is estopped by laches.

Further, assuming that the Parañaque RTC has jurisdiction over the reversion case, still the
lapse of almost three decades in filing the instant case, the inexplicable lack of action of the Republic
and the injury this would cause constrain us to rule for petitioners. While it may be true that estoppel
does not operate against the state or its agents, [20] deviations have been allowed.

Here, the Supreme Court held that considering that innocent purchaser for value Yujuico
bought the lot in 1974, and more than 27 years had elapsed before the action for reversion was filed,
then said action is now barred by laches.